Tara Wagner and Randall Longnecker
While the unique needs of rural areas have long been recognized, the isolation and lack of support that many rural postgraduate medical education programs face remains an ongoing problem. One way to open communication and lessen the solitude for rural family practice programs within the United States would be to develop a network for residency coordinators of "1-2" rural training track residency programs. Just as there are other differences between urban and rural areas, one must also recognize the differences between urban and rural family practice residency programs. Sharing and exploring ideas among peers is difficult because of the geographic obstacles. Rural programs and faculty are often unaware of available support systems within rural family practice. This poster will describe the development of a national network of rural residency program coordinators.
In researching these issues last year, we discovered that there are thirty-one "1-2" rural training track family practice residency programs across the United States. With persistence, we created a comprehensive listing, which is currently published at
http://www.unmc.edu/Community/ruralmeded/, a web site for rural medical education, and on the AAFP Listing of Family Practice Residency Programs. This list creates a foundation for the development of a database of all current and future "1-2" rural training track programs.In developing a list of rural programs, the idea for developing a network of rural residency coordinators was born. Similar networks have been successful in other settings, in other specialties. The goals of this network are to develop an
inter-relationship among rural residency coordinators across the United States, to create and maintain a current and regularly updated database of rural program information, to share information about program successes and ongoing challenges, and to share curricula and other solutions to common problems. In addition, an up-to-date database will be useful on a national level to inform others regarding the unique needs and characteristics of rural medical education programs. At this point in time, there is little easily available regarding longitudinal, statistical and comparative information about
"1-2" rural track residencies. This network will fill that important information void.
Although no formal evaluation methodology has been developed for this project, the initial response of thirty-one "1-2" rural track residency coordinators demonstrates a shared enthusiasm and corroborates a mutual need for such a network. New and inexperienced programs and/or personnel have much to gain from collaboration. Rural coordinators need to be kept abreast of changes and challenges. Peer support is essential for roles that are often uniquely structured and experience based.
Although this network is targeted primarily to rural track residency coordinators, it is likely that this network will also be useful for program directors, prospective residents, rural track health care administrators, health care planners and policymakers and family practice organizations at both the state and national level. We believe that connectivity and collaboration are the keys to success in any endeavor, and we hope that this project will foster both.